Monday, December 31, 2012
Saturday, December 29, 2012
Thursday, December 27, 2012
Monday, December 24, 2012
Sunday, December 23, 2012
Saturday, December 22, 2012
Catholics for Choice,yes!
Catholic for Choice, as those statistics noted in the previous article do speak for most American Catholics. Fir this anti-theist that is luxurious- people who don't depend on the Vatican to do their thinking
The Vatican uses dubious facts, with impeccable logic to make castles in the air instead of using real facts to reach earthly conclusion!
The Vatican uses dubious facts, with impeccable logic to make castles in the air instead of using real facts to reach earthly conclusion!
Friday, December 21, 2012
Reason saves,not that forever dead cult leader!
Reason saves us when we properly use it, whilst the very notion of Yeshua as our savior betrays morality and - humanity!
We mainly do good. Our doing wrong goes against others,never against the putative Deity! We perforce then are not sinners deserving of eternal Hell or annihilation.
To sin means to act against His will, but His will has no right to rule us or judge us anyway: we are independent beings! Theologian John Piper clamours that as the Deity ranks to the utmost any sin against Him also ranks to the utmost,deserving Hell for the perpetrator. No, punishment must be proportionate to the wrong. And again, no relation exists betwixt Him and us for judging.
No rational and decent being would ever have Hell and never would have blood sacrifice done for expiation or for any other reason! Those two notions bespeak barbarism?
Why then would any rational and decent human want to worship such a monster? Paul Copan claims that He is no such monster, but he belies the truth.
France's Reign of Terror with the Goddess of Reason betrayed reason!
Yet Piper and other theologians and apologists have the temerity of calling us sinners, deserving of Hell! We should ever mock such fools!
At our level of consciousness,whence we gain our rights and liberties, not from the Deity or from the state, per Lamberth's argument from autonomy, we know that evil is evil,never any reason for divine neglect.
All should overcome the superstition that is religion : let reason rule!
Yes, some people just cannot overcome this superstition.
What dio you think about all this?
Plantinga- solecistic,sophisticated sophist of woeful,wiley woo!
Alvin Plantinga ranks with Sylvia Brown[e] as a purveyor of woo,even though he uses symbolic logic and tricks of rhetoric.
His EAAN, as noted in the preceding article, is just one of his fusillades against reason.
I suppose he'd add that why, the Devil has us making errors as he states that perhaps the Devil has something to do with natural disasters. That's one unneeded explanation added to another that is supposed itself to be the primary cause and the sufficient reason but is only a mystery, and which with its convoluted, ad hoc assumptions violates the Ockham, and with God not having referents as Creator and so forth and having incoherent,contradicted attributes as the ignostic argument notes cannot possibly exist, being in the same category as square circles and married bachelors!
He overlooks that adaptation is for the near optimum -never necessarily the best.Thus, our faculties need no divine guidance to find the truth. That we do by trial and error, using intersubjectivity to make for objectivity.
Per Lamberth's inherency argument, objective reality, regularity,chaos, order and the descriptions -laws- of Nature,M.L.] inhere in Nature, and thus the putative Deity would perforce depend on them,being then Himself the secondary cause, because like ethics , they are independent of Him.
Ti's superstition per the Lamberth reduced animism= theism argument that that is what theism is and so is as superstitious as full animism and polytheism! We need no supernatural intent behind natural forces or Nature herself: any posited intent is thus superstitious.
He maintains to account for imperfections, omni-God makes flourishes , whilst the limited one has to make things more perfect! This absurd argument answers itself!
Also, as those imperfections can be human or natural disasters, he accounts for evil is that it is for our free wills. No, we have determined volition. Anyway, he uses the greater good and the unknown reason arguments, whch themselves are one f rom ignorance, which with the one from personal incredulty underlies other theistic ones.
Per Fr. Meslier's the problem of Heaven , the Deity could have had it such that we'd have determined volition and a guarantee never to do wrong.That would be consistent but no hobgoblin of little minds.
He claims that we have the sensus divinitatis- inward sense of the Deity, and that gives us the warrant to have as basic the Deity as basic as other minds and the exterior world. Hardly, or no need would have arisen for arguments for Him. And we non-theists do not accept Him as real due to sin but ,because no evidence exists for Him. Theists proffer misinterpretations of evidence as evidence for His very existence.
He claims with that that should upon reading the Scriptures or some other religious experience occurs, one has an epiphany, that underpins the sensus.Hardly, as those very Scriptures contradict themselves and reality! They contradict science and history. They exhort harmful morality for the most part.
Plantinga waddles in the mud of woo.The shame is that his creative mind does not work on projects that would help humanity but instead helps keep so many enthrall in superstition!
What would you add? Any dissent?
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Monday, December 17, 2012
Desiring Morality
We humanists desire to have a rational morality. I am putting forth the covenant morality for humanity- the presumption of humanism,which I endeavor to maintain that humanism ourrranks any theistic divine command theory.
Morality dictates what is best for sentient beings. It finds that the will of the supposed Deity for a relationship with us is utterly irrelevant to morality and is in fact immoral in how to come about!
His tastes and whims mean nothing to morality. He has no right over us and no right to judge us and put us into any Hell! This upsets theists,because they seem to think that might makes right.They claim that His omniscience gives Him the right to prescribe ethics and morality for us. No, they overlook that with the differences amongst the different sects, He speaks with a forked tongue!
A divine command theory must take that into account. Perhaps, a theorist would maintain that why, as we have many virtues and morals in common, we can resort to those, omitting then the differences.
Why should He reprove evil does in the future state instead of not letting the free wills of the Pol Pots to override those of millions as Fr. Meslier's the problem of Heaven enjoins?
How many theists would become immoral were they to become atheists? None. Oh, there would actuall be a moral improvement in some matters, such as sex!
How many people consider doing something wrong but decide not to due to His influence. None. Indeed, many commit wrongs due to thinking that that is His will.
We are not sinners- beings who just cannot measure up to His standards. We do mainly good most of the time. Ti's hightly irresponsbible to betray people with that nonsense!
We hardly could slight the supposed Deity! He would be impervious to slights. Anyway, ti's invidious to claim that measured against His nature, any wrong would be tantamount to any great wrong. That is highly irrational and immoral!
That attitude is totalitarian! Why, it is that of the Stalins! The previous writer merits contemnation as a misanthropist! His biblical ethic is highly misanthropic. The notion of Hell is that.
Such people bespeak a love of might makes right and disregard of real morality.
We should ever mock such stupidity and such purveyors of immorality!
We have a higher moral standard than those of the Ages of Faith!
Please add other moral considerations to this!
Sunday, December 16, 2012
Muhammad's Fits
I'll prattle about Islam from time to time. I do call it Muhammad's Fits, because he had epileptic visions whereby he came up with his revelation.
I view him just as another cult leader, bringing forth grave evils for humanity.
He was a child molester by our standards and a warmonger. His simple subjectivism is no better than that of the writers of the Tanakh and the Testament.
What do you think? I welcome vigorous disputation.
Saturday, December 15, 2012
No to Chandler and to Stevens
Soterian then expressely maintains that Yahweh is narcissistic! All is for His glory. And the other Yahweh for humanity in the end amounts to the same,because the writers of that anthology present His as not interested in what is best for us.
No Deity has dominion over us anyway! As independent beings, we owe none anything-no worship and obedience. To proclaim otherwise proclaims that might is right.
It ill seves to claim that why, with His omniscience, He'd know more than we and thus would have the right to declare morality and to judge us.As Yahweh sends humanity evils, why would any rational and moral being ever want to serve HIm?
The Atonement bespeaks just blood sacrifice just as evil as that of the Aztecs and others: the innocent should never serve as expiation for the guilty.
Yet, according to that execrable anthology, we break His morality when in many cases,no, we affirm life! The sexual attitude is misanthropic. The commands to stone and the notion of Hell bespeak savagery.
We are not sinners: we do mostly good. None should ever face Hell,even the one of just annihilation,except for the Hitlers.
Universalism, that all eventually go to Heaven cannot overwhelm the fact that the duty of Yahweh was to have put us into a better place in the first place,per Fr. Meslier's the problem of Heaven, that one -way street for Him.
Thus, both Matt Chandler and Mark Stevens err.
No Deity has dominion over us anyway! As independent beings, we owe none anything-no worship and obedience. To proclaim otherwise proclaims that might is right.
It ill seves to claim that why, with His omniscience, He'd know more than we and thus would have the right to declare morality and to judge us.As Yahweh sends humanity evils, why would any rational and moral being ever want to serve HIm?
The Atonement bespeaks just blood sacrifice just as evil as that of the Aztecs and others: the innocent should never serve as expiation for the guilty.
Yet, according to that execrable anthology, we break His morality when in many cases,no, we affirm life! The sexual attitude is misanthropic. The commands to stone and the notion of Hell bespeak savagery.
We are not sinners: we do mostly good. None should ever face Hell,even the one of just annihilation,except for the Hitlers.
Universalism, that all eventually go to Heaven cannot overwhelm the fact that the duty of Yahweh was to have put us into a better place in the first place,per Fr. Meslier's the problem of Heaven, that one -way street for Him.
Thus, both Matt Chandler and Mark Stevens err.
Friday, December 14, 2012
Thursday, December 13, 2012
Tuesday, December 11, 2012
Monday, December 10, 2012
Friday, December 7, 2012
Thursday, December 6, 2012
Wednesday, December 5, 2012
Tuesday, December 4, 2012
Monday, December 3, 2012
My deconversion
At sixteeen, I deconverted. I only wanted to know were there God. I never thought about any future state whatsoever. At ten, I became aware of some biblical contradictions and evolution. Then at sixteen I read Nathaniel Branden's existence exist, discernng no need for God.
I was inscensed about Hell- and rightly so! I knew that no moral being would even consider Hell.
I just had to read all I could about what was wrong with arguments for God. I felt somewhat taken aback that I just had an emotional need for that,because maybe Iwas wrong! I came across arguments that I thought might be wrong but couldn't discern why, but with time I found out why
I deconverted with my volition!
Seven years ago, I started posting and started threads at various sites as an anti-thei Some- including atheists- objected to my style.Oh, I had to learn to use spell check and to space. Some liked my style-ornate at times.Why, some agreed with me, and others disagreed. So, style was irrelevant!
Then a little later came my blogging. Now I have more than 120 blogs where I compose my own articles and comments and reblog others".
Now, ti's up to my readers to comment here and at any of my others.
Sunday, December 2, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)